Baba Yunus Muhammad
When dawn broke over Gaza on the 9th of November, 2025, it brought neither peace nor silence. The roar of Israeli jets shattered the pretense of calm as explosions tore through crowded neighborhoods, refugee camps, and hospital shelters. By morning, at least 104 Palestinians were dead — 35 of them children. Among the ruins stood the Insan camp, a temporary refuge for cancer patients, reduced to dust and disbelief.
The strikes came just three weeks after a ceasefire agreement that the world hailed as a “turning point.” For Palestinians, ceasefires have long ceased to mean peace. They are pauses — brief, exhausted silences before the next storm.
Anatomy of a Fragile Ceasefire
The October 10 ceasefire, brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump, was the latest in a series of fragile truces. Like its predecessors, it emerged not from mutual understanding but mutual fatigue. Israel retained control of Gaza’s airspace, borders, and sea routes; its drones continued to hover overhead; its army remained positioned just beyond the fence. Gaza, meanwhile, was expected to disarm while receiving little relief from a blockade that has strangled its economy for more than seventeen years.
Netanyahu’s renewed airstrikes followed a firefight in which an Israeli soldier was killed. Hamas denied initiating the clash, accusing Israeli troops of provocation. The immediate spark came amid public outrage in Israel over Hamas handing over fragments of a hostage’s body — remains Israeli forces claimed to have recovered two years earlier. The symbolism ignited nationalist fury, and Netanyahu reached for a familiar weapon: war.
War as Political Theatre
To understand why ceasefires collapse, one must look beyond the battlefield to the political theatre surrounding it. Netanyahu has long used Gaza’s suffering as a backdrop for domestic consolidation. Each escalation allows him to recast himself as Israel’s “protector,” diverting attention from corruption charges, coalition infighting, and mounting social unrest.
For Hamas, resistance remains a key source of legitimacy. Under siege since 2007, governing one of the most densely populated and impoverished territories on earth, defiance is a declaration of existence. Each exchange of fire sustains the cycle: Israel bombs to restore deterrence; Hamas fires back to restore dignity. Civilians are left to mourn, rebuild, and wait for the next pause — one that will hold just long enough for the world to look away.
Ceasefire Without Justice
Ceasefires in Gaza are often truce agreements without justice. They pause the violence but leave structural oppression intact. Since 2009, more than a dozen ceasefires have been declared, yet the roots of the conflict — occupation, displacement, blockade — remain. The siege restricts movement, bans exports, and limits imports, including medical supplies and construction materials. Unemployment hovers around 50 percent, electricity is rationed, and most children have never known freedom.
The Global Theatre
President Trump’s declaration that “nothing will jeopardise the ceasefire” while endorsing Israel’s “right to hit back” exposes the moral contradictions of global diplomacy. The United States presents itself as a peace broker while supplying Israel with weapons that make peace impossible. Europe, too, speaks of international law even as it trades with settlement-based companies and arms the Israeli military. The result is complicity. For Palestinians, the “international community” has become a bitter phrase — a chorus that mourns the dead but funds the killers.
Counting the Cost
Behind the numbers lie human stories. Children who had survived multiple wars, doctors performing surgeries by flashlight, teachers turning bomb shelters into classrooms — all perished or struggled to survive in this latest attack. At the Insan camp, a sanctuary for cancer patients, survivors described a night of terror and despair: “We thought a medical facility would be safe. Now we know that nothing is.”
Amid devastation, Gaza endures. Volunteers dig through rubble with their bare hands. Teachers reopen classrooms in the shadows of ruins. Mothers cook what little food remains for neighbors who have lost everything. Survival itself is resistance.
The Economics of Occupation
Every war leaves Gaza poorer and more dependent. The destruction of infrastructure is systematic: roads, factories, schools, and farms targeted to erase economic independence. The blockade prevents reconstruction, ensuring reliance on international aid, often routed through Israeli checkpoints and banks.
Occupation thus creates a paradox: humanitarian relief sustains the very structures that destroy lives. For Islamic economists, this reveals the moral bankruptcy of a global financial order that profits from misery. Decolonisation, therefore, is not only political — it is economic. Ending occupation requires dismantling systems that convert suffering into commerce and war into industry.
Africa’s Mirror
For Africans, Palestine’s struggle is painfully familiar. From apartheid South Africa to colonial frontiers in Algeria and Kenya, the continent knows what it means to have land stolen, identity erased, and resistance criminalized. African solidarity with Palestine is not sentimentality; it is historical memory. Nelson Mandela captured this truth: “Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
Economic justice, rooted in ethics, equity, and human dignity, must be the foundation for lasting peace — not only for Palestine but for the Global South as a whole.
What Will It Take?
The question before the world is simple yet profound: Will the ceasefire hold?
History offers little optimism. A truce that leaves occupation intact is a truce built on sand. Peace cannot be sustained by fear or imposed by force. It requires justice — not as rhetoric, but as reality.
For Gaza, justice means an end to siege, reconstruction without interference, accountability for war crimes, and recognition of Palestinian rights. It demands that the world confront its complicity and act beyond rhetoric. Islamic ethical principles remind us that peace (salam) cannot exist without justice (adl), and wealth should serve humanity rather than domination.
Will the Ceasefire Hold?
Not as it stands. A ceasefire can stop bullets, but not the machinery that fires them. It can pause violence, but not the ideology that justifies it. True peace will hold only when Gaza is free, Palestinians are sovereign, and the international community prioritizes justice over geopolitics.
Until then, each ceasefire is not the end of war, but preparation for the next. Yet hope persists — in Gaza’s hospitals, in classrooms rebuilt from rubble, in mothers who refuse despair. The ceasefire will hold only when the world’s conscience does — when justice, not expedience, becomes the guiding principle.
Footnote:
AFRIEF Webinar — “Palestine: Stolen or Decolonised?”
The Africa Islamic Economic Forum (AFRIEF) will host a two-hour virtual webinar exploring the political economy of Palestine, the structures sustaining occupation, and pathways toward decolonisation. Scholars, economists, and policy experts will examine how ethical finance, economic justice, and international solidarity intersect with the struggle for Palestinian sovereignty.
This webinar builds on discussions highlighted in this feature, providing a platform for informed dialogue on justice-oriented economics, human dignity, and the moral imperatives that must guide responses to Gaza’s ongoing crisis.
Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum and a political and economic analyst with a focus on sustainable development, global trade, and Islamic economics. He writes regularly on issues of economic justice, governance, and the intersection of faith and finance
“We do not seem to have any common values on which we can all agree, nor common goals to which we all aspire.” Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo hit the nail on the head when he made this observation during his address to the United Nations General Assembly last week. At a time when interlocking crises are escalating, the international order appears increasingly fractured, and there is profound uncertainty about the role of the UN itself. Where can we find the impetus and direction needed to restore multilateralism?
The responses shed some light on the unifying values and goals that are conspicuously absent from today’s global governance system. They show that people around the world still have faith in democracy, but in an age of crisis and inequality, they want it to deliver tangible improvements in their own lives.
The figures from Africa were particularly striking. Eight of the 30 countries we surveyed – Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Tunisia – are on the continent. Of course, responses varied significantly on some questions, reflecting different historical and political circumstances. For example, 63% of Egyptians believe that military rule is a good way of running a country, compared to 40% of Ethiopians and only 20% of Senegalese. At the same time, an even higher proportion of Egyptians yearn for democracy; evidently, they are unsure whether their brief experimentation with it could be considered a success.
Notably, while most respondents across the 30 countries we surveyed expressed feelings of insecurity and inequity, these sentiments were most pronounced in Africa. Similarly, respondents from the continent were among the most anxious about climate change’s negative impact on their lives and livelihoods. In Kenya and Ethiopia, for example, 83% of respondents voiced such concerns.
Of the five countries where our polling found the greatest fear that political unrest would lead to violence within the next year, four were in Africa: Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, and Senegal. African respondents were also the most likely to say that inequality between countries is a bigger challenge now than it was in 2022. This sense was strongest in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Senegal, but all eight African countries were in the top half of that chart.
Likewise, while a majority of respondents in most countries shared certain views regarding the necessity of global changes, those majorities were generally the largest in Africa. For example, African respondents, led by those in Nigeria and Kenya, were the most inclined to say that “human rights reflect values I believe in” and among the most likely to agree that “tools such as travel bans and freezing bank accounts are useful ways to bring human rights violators to justice.”
Africans, more so than respondents from other continents, agreed that countries should open more safe and legal routes for refugees. They strongly backed the rebalancing of international institutions, with many advocating for lower-income countries to have a greater say in global decision-making. Seven of the ten national groups most supportive of the statement “high-income countries should give more money to the World Bank” were from Africa.
Taken together, these results suggest that Africa is like the rest of the world – just more so. Given that the continent is on the front lines of the so-called “polycrisis,” Africans experience its pressures more immediately than most. But they are also most likely to embrace the necessary solutions, such as reforming global governance structures and the international financial architecture, stabilizing today’s chaotic interdependence, and making massive new investments in sustainable development.
At the global level, the poll suggests that people are much more forward-leaning in their expectations of multilateralism than their political leaders. They want effective international solutions to the pressing problems in their lives. Nowhere is this truer than in Africa.
For those of us seeking future champions and ideas for multilateral reform, it is clear that we must look beyond the usual suspects – Western governments zealously protecting their power and privilege – and instead tap into the wellspring of the Global South. This is where the future lie.
Mark Malloch-Brown, a former deputy United Nations secretary-general and co-chair of the UN Foundation, is President of the Open Society Foundations.